Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Document Number: DCAS-PR-004

Effective Date: 04/15/2011

Revision No. 1

Internal Procedures for the Processing of Special 

Exposure Cohort Petitions Page 1 of 48

Concurrence: Signature on File 04/13/2011

Signature Date

J.W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Name

Approval: Signature on File 04/15/2011

Signature Date

Stuart L. Hinnefeld, DCAS Director

Name

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION TITLE PAGE

1.0 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................... .... 4

2.0 SCOPE................................................................................................................................ .... 4

3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... ... 4

4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES ......................................................................................................... ... 5

5.0 GENERAL........................................................................................................................... ... 5

5.1 Website and telephone line ............................................................................................... 5

5.2 Management of documents related to SEC petitions ....................................................... 6

6.0 PROCEDURE......................................................................................... ... 7

6.1 Determine whether the petition qualifies for evaluation ................................................. 7 

6.2 Provide notification of a petition that has been selected for evaluation ....................... 18
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 2 of 48

 

6.3 Timeline decision points for evaluation ........................................................................ 19

6.4 Evaluate a petition qualifying for evaluation under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13 ........................ 20

6.5 Evaluate the petition qualifying for evaluation under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14 ..................... 33

6.6 Prepare an evaluation report responding to the petition(s) ........................................... 34

6.7 Transmit and publicize the evaluation report ................................................................ 35

6.8 Schedule a presentation to the board ............................................................................ 36

6.9 Establish a proposed decision on the outcome of the petition(s) .................................. 36

6.10 Transmiting proposed decisions ................................................................................. 37

6.11 How the Secretary makes and reports a final decision ............................................... 37

6.12 Determination to Congress if class is found not to meet statutory criteria ................. 38

6.13 Transmit and publicize final decisions ....................................................................... 38

6.14 Transmit and publicize outcome of congressional review .......................................... 40

6.15 Conduct an HHS administrative review of final decisions, as necessary ................... 41

6.16 Review the utility of newly obtained records and information for classes of 

employees added to the cohort ............................................................................................. 43

7.0 RECORDS........................................................................................................................... . 44

8.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................... 44

8.1 Drivers .......................................................................................................................... 44

8.2 Forms ............................................................................................................................ 44

8.3 Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 44 

9.0 ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................... 44

10.0 ATTACHMENT 1 “Evaluation Report Template” ............................................................. 46
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 3 of 48

 

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

EFFECTIVE

DATE

REV. 

NO.

DESCRIPTION

9/23/2004 9/23/2004 0

New document to establish the requirements for 

processing Special Exposure Cohort Petitions

xx/xx/2011 04/15/2011 1 Revision to incorporate changes resulting from 

amendments to 42 C.F.R. Part 83 and other 

updates
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 4 of 48

 

1.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of this internal procedure is to provide general guidance for the staff of the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support (DCAS) and its technical support contractors concerning processing of Special Exposure 

Cohort (SEC) petitions under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) (42 U.S.C. § 7384n(c)(3)(A)). This internal procedure 

supplements the procedures described under 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 83, 

related procedures and guidelines for dose reconstruction described under 42 C.F.R. Part 82, and 

related dose reconstruction implementation guidelines (OCAS-IG-001 and OCAS-IG-002). 

2.0 SCOPE

This document applies to all SEC petitions processed by DCAS and its support contractors. 

3.0 REFERENCES

3.1 42 C.F.R. pt. 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal 

Register/Vol. 67, No. 85/Thursday, May 2, 2002, p. 22,314.

3.2 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the 

Special Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol. 69, No.104/Friday 

May 28, 2004, p. 30,764.

3.3 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the 

Special Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000; Amendments: Interim Final Rule With Request for 

Comments, Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 245/Thursday, December 22, 2005, p. 75,949.

3.4 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the 

Special Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000; Amendments, Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 

131/Friday July 10, 2007, p. 37,455.
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 5 of 48

 

3.5 NIOSH, (2007) External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, OCAS-IG-001, 

Rev 3, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

3.6 NIOSH, (2002) Internal Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, OCAS-IG-002, 

Rev 0, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio.

3.7 OCAS-PR-005 Rev 0, Conduct of Assessments, December 3, 2004. 

3.8 OCAS-PR-006 Rev 4, CIC Processing Compensation Cases, November19, 2007.

3.9 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(c)(3)(A) Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). 

4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

Described in procedure 

5.0 GENERAL

This DCAS procedure supplements the procedures of the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) published in 42 C.F.R., part 83 for designating classes of employees as members 

of the SEC. This internal DCAS procedure provides more specific guidance for DCAS and its 

technical support contractors for performing their respective responsibilities in implementing the 

EEOICPA program. This procedure does not create any substantive rights on behalf of 

petitioners. 

5.1 Website and Telephone Line

5.1.1 DCAS will maintain the NIOSH/DCAS website (www.cdc.gov/niosh/OCAS). 

The website will include a posting of the HHS procedures as published in the 

Federal Register and any subsequent revisions thereto. 

5.1.2 DCAS will also post this internal DCAS procedure on the website. Any 

subsequent revision of the HHS procedures, as announced in the Federal Register, 

will be evaluated for any impact on DCAS activities and incorporated as 

necessary in this DCAS procedure. Any subsequent revision of this procedure 

will be posted on the NIOSH/DCAS website. Comments regarding this internal 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 6 of 48

 

procedure or any revisions thereto are welcome, and may be provided at any time 

to DCAS at DCAS@cdc.gov.

5.1.3 DCAS will post and continuously track the progress of each active petition on the 

website. 

5.1.4 DCAS will support and work with the SEC Petition Counselor and will maintain 

on the website current information regarding the services provided by the 

Counselor and contact information. 

5.1.5 DCAS will maintain a telephone line (1-877-222-7570) and information on the 

website in order to respond to requests and to provide detailed instructions for 

preparing and submitting petitions. Requestors may be sent a copy of, or be 

referred to, the online version of the petition form. 

5.2 Management of documents related to SEC petitions 

Note: A number of physical and procedural measures will be implemented in order to 

protect the privacy of SEC petitioners and to assure the safekeeping of documents 

received by and produced by DCAS relating to SEC petitions. 

5.2.1 Physical management of SEC documents (filing, storage, scanning) 

Newly received petitions and supporting documents will be scanned and uploaded 

to the DCAS SEC Application (DSA) tracking system and hardcopies filed in the 

appropriate petition folder in locked SEC-dedicated filing cabinets located in a 

restricted access office area. Documents are to be placed in the petition folder by 

document type. Electronic documents will not be printed as hardcopies for filing. 

5.2.2 Privacy Act compliance 

SEC documents in the possession of DCAS will be handled in a manner which 

will protect the privacy of petitioners or others involved in the petition process. 

Unless in a restricted access office area, SEC documents that contain information 

protected by the Privacy Act will not be left accessible at an unattended work 

station. When SEC reports, decisions, or other releases are to be issued, they 

must be appropriately redacted to protect the privacy of individuals and must be 

reviewed by the NIOSH Office of General Counsel (OGC) for privacy and other 

legal considerations prior to being sent to the intended audience. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 7 of 48

 

5.2.3 Quality Assurance 

 Conduct periodic Quality Control checks to compare the documents in a petition 

file with the scanned entries in OSA in order to assure that all documents have 

been included in the appropriate petition file. This check should be performed 

following the procedure outlined in DCAS-PR-005, “Conduct of Assessments,” 

and may be scheduled via the DCAS quarterly assessment. 

 

6.0 PROCEDURE

6.1 Determine whether the petition qualifies for evaluation. 

Note: The steps and procedures within subsection 6.1 provide guidance for determining 

whether a petition for cohort status meets the requirements specified under 42 C.F.R.,

part 83 to qualify for evaluation by DCAS, the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health (Board), and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS). These requirements, specified under §§ 83.7 and 83.9, are separate and distinct 

from the criteria by which the Secretary of HHS will determine whether or not to add a 

class of employees to the Cohort. The steps presented herein for receipt, handling, filing, 

and responding to petitions are presented to show their relationship to the overall process 

of evaluating petitions. Specific responsibilities and actions for those elements are 

presented in DCAS-PR-006, “CIC Processing Compensation Cases.”

6.1.1 Receive, acknowledge receipt of, and assign the petition. 

6.1.1.1 Petitions must be in writing (includes fax, email, or electronic files). In 

response to verbal/phone contacts, the petitioner should be instructed on 

how to properly submit a petition (see Section 5.0). Date-stamp the 

petition the day it is received by DCAS (except for electronic 

submissions) and log it into the DCAS SEC Application (OSA) tracking 

system by completing all the relevant fields. Time periods for the steps 

of the SEC evaluation process are to be counted as calendar days from 

the business day of receipt (or 3 business days after initial proof of 

mailing, whichever time period is shorter). 

6.1.1.2 Send acknowledgment of receipt of the petition to the petitioner(s).

6.1.1.3 Assign the petition to a primary reviewer. To address concerns about a 

possible perceived or actual conflict of interest, DCAS and/or its 

contractors shall assign a reviewer who has never been employed, either 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 8 of 48

 

as a direct employee or as a contractor or subcontractor, at the facility 

identified by the petition. 

6.1.1.4 If appropriate, pend claim(s) associated with the petitioner(s).

6.1.2 Establish the qualifications of the petitioner(s). 

6.1.2.1 For petitions covered under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14, verify that the identified 

petitioner is a claimant for a dose reconstruction that NIOSH found it 

could not complete. 

6.1.2.2 For petitions not covered under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14 by employees and/or 

their survivors, or by individuals or entities they have authorized to 

petition on behalf of the class, verify through DCAS records that the 

employee or survivor is a Department of Energy (DOE) employee, DOE 

contractor employee, or Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) employee 

(or survivor). If DCAS records are insufficient to make this 

determination, use alternative means, such as requesting information 

from the petitioner(s) or survivor(s). The employee must also have had 

employment within the parameters of the class of employees at the DOE 

facility or AWE facility defined in the petition. To the extent possible, 

DCAS will work with the petitioners to resolve verification problems. 

Petitioners and/or others may provide affidavits or other relevant 

evidence in cases in which records available to DCAS are insufficient to 

verify that the employee (or survivor) is qualified to petition for the class 

of employees defined in the petition. In cases where affidavits or other 

relevant evidence are used for verification, review the affidavits or other 

relevant evidence for their adequacy and credibility and consult the SEC 

Health Physics Team Leader of DCAS (or designee) before making a 

decision. DCAS will make the final decision regarding the 

qualifications under this step. 

6.1.2.3 For petitions by one or more labor organizations, verify that the petition 

includes documentation that the labor organization represents or 

represented one or more members of the class of employees at a DOE 

facility or AWE facility, as defined by the petition. Documentation 

would typically be a signed contract between the labor organization and 

the employer, which specifies that the labor organization is, or was, an 

authorized bargaining unit representing one or more of the employees in 

the class. For employees who are, or were, members of labor unions 

that never had a contract with the employer, documentation to be 

provided by the labor organization could be proof of the union 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 9 of 48

 

membership of one or more members of the class. Work with the 

petitioner(s) to obtain such documentation if it has been omitted. 

6.1.2.4 If the qualifications of at least one of the primary petitioners can be 

verified, continue processing the petition, working only with verified 

petitioners. If the qualifications of a petitioner cannot be verified, notify 

the SEC Health Physics Team Leader (or designee) by email. This email 

should include a complete summary of actions taken to verify the 

qualifications of the petitioner(s) and the results of these actions. Treat 

the unqualified petitioner(s) as interested members of the public, not as 

petitioners, until further notice. 

6.1.2.5 If there is more than one petitioner on the petition, inquire of the 

petitioners if they would prefer that a lead petitioner be selected to serve 

as the primary point of contact for that petition. If selected, the lead 

petitioner will be the main point of contact for communication between 

DCAS and the petitioners. 

6.1.3 Confirm the scope of the class of employees intended by the petitioner(s) for 

petitions not covered under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14.

6.1.3.1 Evaluate the definition of the class of employees included in the petition 

to ensure that the class is limited to employees who worked at a single 

DOE or AWE facility, as defined under 42 U.S.C. §§ 7384 l (5) and 

(12). A facility could, among other possibilities, constitute a single 

building or structure, including the grounds upon which it is located, or a 

site encompassing multiple buildings or structures, including the 

grounds upon which they are located. A petition cannot cover 

employees from more than one facility. If necessary, counsel the 

petitioner(s) to submit additional petitions such that each petition is 

specific to a class of employees at a single facility. 

6.1.3.2 Review the class definition to ensure that it represents a class of 

employees that worked at a DOE or AWE facility, versus an individual 

employee. As required under EEOICPA and defined by 42 C.F.R. § 

83.5(d), a “class of employees” for purposes of additions to the Cohort 

must be a “group of employees”, rather than a single individual. 

Furthermore, as specified under 42 C.F.R. § 83.1, the Special Exposure 

Cohort procedures are not intended to provide a second opportunity to 

qualify a claim for compensation, once DCAS has completed the dose 

reconstruction and the Department of Labor (DOL) has determined that 

the cancer subject to the claim was not “at least as likely as not” caused 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 10 of 48

 

by the estimated radiation doses. DOL has established procedures 

separate from those in 42 C.F.R., part 83 for cancer claimants who want 

to contest the factual findings upon which DCAS based its dose 

reconstruction or the application of the DCAS dose reconstruction 

methodology to those facts. A petition on behalf of an individual 

employee does not meet the requirements of 42 C.F.R. § 83.9 (c). 

6.1.3.3 Review the class definition to identify the applicable time period(s), 

locations, processes, job titles, exposure incidents and other specific 

parameters included by the petitioner(s). If time periods and other 

required parameters are not specified, or if some parameters are broader 

than might be expected in light of the petition justification, consult the 

petitioner(s) to remedy any deficiencies and to confirm that the 

definition is as specific as intended or possible. 

The justifying information upon which the class definition is to be based 

must be reasonably applicable to the entire time period, to any 

identified occupations and to any other specific characterizing elements 

of the class definition. If the qualifying information clearly only 

pertains to a portion of the total period defined in the class definition, or 

only to a specific subgroup of workers with unique exposures or 

uniquely missing exposure monitoring records, then the petition should 

be qualified for only those periods or subgroups of workers for which 

there is justification. Where there is uncertainty, err on the side of 

inclusion. 

Example 1: A petitioner provides information indicating that guards at a facility were 

unmonitored and potentially exposed, but he/she petitions on behalf of everyone at the 

facility. DCAS would qualify the petition for guards but not for all employees at the 

facility. The petitioner could then seek NIOSH review as to whether the rest of the class 

(all non-guard employees) should be qualified for evaluation. However, if the petitioner 

provided no evidence that other employees were unmonitored, nor was such evident to 

DCAS, then the petition would not be qualified for those other employees. 

Example 2: An individual petitions for the entire operational period of a facility but 

provides evidence that there was no monitoring only during the initial start-up of the 

operation. DCAS might confirm that monitoring was deficient during that start-up time 

period, but was implemented as a full program at a certain later date. DCAS would not 

qualify the petition for the entire operational period, but only for the period until a full 

monitoring program was put into operation. 

 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 11 of 48

 

6.1.3.4 If the petitioner(s) changes the class definition to remedy any 

deficiencies or to provide greater specificity, DCAS or its technical 

support contractors should provide the petitioner(s) with written 

documentation of changes in an e-mail, fax or letter that is added to the 

record. The petitioner(s) should be given 10 days to respond if they 

have any changes to what is in the e-mail, fax, or letter. If the class 

definition is deficient in terms of required parameters and the 

petitioner(s) cannot remedy such deficiencies, notify the SEC Health 

Physics Team Leader of DCAS (or designee). 

6.1.3.5 If the petition is based on circumstances related to an exposure incident, 

confirm the occurrence of the exposure incident through records or 

information from DCAS, DOE, an AWE, or other sources. If its 

occurrence cannot be confirmed by any of these sources, request 

confirmation from the petitioner(s), as provided for under 42 C.F.R. § 

83.9(c)(3). Such requests should first be made orally with explanation, 

and then by a follow-up letter summarizing the discussion and 

documenting the request. Responses to such requests should be 

provided to the SEC Health Physics Team Leader of DCAS (or 

designee). A failure to respond to such requests within 30 days 

following the initial oral request should be followed-up with a 

documented telephone call to the petitioner(s) to determine the cause for 

delay and to provide guidance, as appropriate. The further lack of a 

response within the subsequent 15 days following that call, unless 

DCAS had previously granted a request from the petitioner(s) for an 

extension of time, should also be followed up with a documented call to 

the petitioner(s). If, on the basis of the last call, verification from the 

petitioner(s) is not available or forthcoming, notify the SEC Health 

Physics Team Leader of DCAS (or designee). 

6.1.3.6 For petitions based on circumstances related to a confirmed exposure 

incident, establish parameters defining the class of employees potentially 

exposed with as much specificity as can be substantiated by the 

information currently held by DCAS. 

6.1.4 For petitions not covered under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14, determine whether DCAS is in 

receipt of other petitions on behalf of the same class of employees and take 

appropriate actions accordingly, as provided for under 42 C.F.R. § 83.12(b). 

6.1.4.1 If another petition under consideration completely covers the class 

defined in the new petition and NIOSH has not published a Federal 

Register notice under 42 C.F.R. § 83.15(a) with respect to the petition 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 12 of 48

 

under consideration, then combine the petitions for the purposes of all 

steps in these procedures, providing that the new petition is determined 

to be qualified for evaluation. If, under these circumstances, another 

petition only partially covers the class defined in the new petition, then 

combine the petitions for the purposes of all steps in these procedures 

for the overlapping class only. The class members proposed by the new 

petition, but not covered by the petition under consideration, should be 

handled as a separate class for the purposes of all steps in these 

procedures. If two or more petitions are combined, send a Privacy Act 

waiver to the petitioners on each petition, asking if they would like to 

share their name and contact information with all the petitioners. Due to 

Privacy Act concerns, DCAS cannot share names and contact 

information between petitioners without consent from the individuals. 

Once the petitioner agrees to share his or her information, DCAS will 

provide that information to all parties involved in the combined petition. 

6.1.4.2 If another petition under consideration completely covers the class 

defined in the new petition, and NIOSH has already published a Federal 

Register notice under 42 C.F.R. § 83.15(a) with respect to the petition 

under consideration, notify the SEC Health Physics Team Leader of 

DCAS (or designee). A determination will have to be made as to 

whether the new petition presents substantial new information germane 

to the criteria for adding a class to the Cohort. If the new petition 

presents such new information, it would be further considered as a new 

petition, following the steps in these procedures, providing that the new 

petition is determined to be qualified for evaluation. If the new petition 

does not present such new information, it does not satisfy the 

requirement under 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(c)(5), and the petitioner(s) should be 

notified. Go to step 6.1.6.

6.1.4.3 If another petition under consideration partially covers the class defined 

in the new petition, and NIOSH has already published a Federal Register 

notice under 42 C.F.R. § 83.15(a) with respect to the petition under 

consideration, then notify the SEC Health Physics Team Leader of 

DCAS (or designee). A determination will have to be made as to 

whether, with respect to the class covered by both petitions, the new 

petition presents substantial new information germane to the criteria for 

adding a class to the Cohort. If so, it would be further considered in its 

entirety as a new petition, following the steps in these procedures, 

providing that the new petition is determined to be qualified for 

evaluation under 42 C.F.R. § 83.9. If not, the petition would be further 

considered with respect to the part of the class defined in the new 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 13 of 48

 

petition that is not covered by the petition already under consideration. 

These class members should be handled as a separate class for the 

purposes of all steps in these procedures, providing that the new petition 

is determined to be qualified for evaluation under 42 C.F.R. § 83.9. For 

the part of the class for which the new petition does not present new 

information as required under 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(c)(5), go to step 6.1.6. 

6.1.4.4 If HHS has already made its decisions with respect to the designation of 

a class covered in part or in its entirety by the new petition, notify the 

petitioner(s) of these decisions. If the petition covers class members 

who have not been designated for addition to the Cohort, notify the SEC 

Health Physics Team Leader of DCAS (or designee). When appropriate, 

as described under steps 6.1.4.2 and 6.1.4.3, determine whether the new 

petition provides, with respect to the class or part of the class, substantial 

new information germane to the criteria for adding a class to the Cohort 

and proceed accordingly to consider the petition and/or to step 6.1.6.

6.1.5 For petitions not covered under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14, review the petitioner’s basis 

for believing records and information available are inadequate to estimate the 

radiation doses incurred by members of the proposed class with sufficient 

accuracy. 

6.1.5.1 Under paragraphs (i) and (ii) of 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(c)(2) and (ii) of § 

83.9(c)(3), affidavits must be sufficiently specific and factual to indicate 

the assertion in the affidavit(s) is based on the experience of employees 

who are members of the class covered by the petition or other witnesses, 

as appropriate. In addition: (1) consider the applicability of assertions to 

the circumstances of the petitioning class of employees when such 

assertions are based on circumstances among classes of employees at the 

facility who might reasonably be considered to be separate from the 

petitioning class of employees; examples of such classes are employees 

who worked during a different time period, under different management, 

or under different exposure, monitoring, or record keeping procedures; 

and (2) consider the adequacy and credibility of assertions in 

consultation with the SEC Health Physics Team Leader of DCAS (or 

designee). In some cases, it may be useful to involve persons with a 

variety of perspectives to thoroughly consider concerns about the 

adequacy and credibility of an assertion. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 14 of 48

 

Discussion: “Adequacy” and “credibility” are not judgments subject to any rigid 

criteria. Since each case is likely to be unique, “adequacy” and “credibility” will 

be determined on a case-by-case basis, based on a totality of the circumstances. 

6.1.5.2 Under paragraphs (i) and (ii) of 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(c)(2), if the 

documentation provided by the petitioner consists solely of 

communications from DOE or an AWE to the petitioner indicating that 

it lacks monitoring records on any members of the proposed class, 

attempt to determine whether DCAS has access to records on the class 

members. Make this determination within 30 days of receipt of the 

petition. If the records are available to DCAS, notify the petitioner that 

DCAS has access to the information it needs to begin a dose 

reconstruction. If the petitioner still seeks to petition, the petitioner will 

be required to provide another basis to satisfy the requirements of this 

subsection. 

6.1.5.3 Under paragraph (iv) of 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(c)(2), note that the scientific or 

technical report can be from the Government Accounting Office, the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, or from any level of the Executive Branch of government, 

including federal, state, and local executive agencies. It is possible, for 

example, that a state environmental or public health agency might have 

examined the availability of dosimetry and related information with 

respect to an AWE. 

6.1.6 Within 30 calendar days from the receipt of a petition, DCAS or its technical 

support contractor shall produce a draft professional judgment that includes a 

preliminary qualification determination based on the petition and supporting 

documentation received. 

6.1.6.1 If a draft professional judgment is not provided within the 30-day 

period, the SEC Health Physics Team Leader will brief the DCAS 

Director, Deputy Director, and the Associate Director for Science (ADS) 

on the reasons the draft professional judgment is delayed. After this 

briefing, the Director or his designee will determine whether the petition 

should be qualified with the information on hand, or whether the staff 

should continue to work with the petitioner to help him/her qualify the 

petition. If the petition does not qualify as received, the petitioner will 

be advised of the deficiencies and provided 30 calendar days (which 

may be extended) to submit additional information to remedy those 

deficiencies. Time during which DCAS is awaiting additional 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 15 of 48

 

information from the petitioner is not counted toward the 30 calendar 

days allowed to reach a draft qualification determination.

6.1.6.2 The draft professional judgment should be used to determine whether an 

evaluation team should be selected and a project planning schedule 

developed for completion of the evaluation report. 

6.1.7 Within 75 calendar days from receipt of a petition, DCAS shall produce a final 

professional judgment, which includes the qualification decision. This decision 

will be reviewed by the DCAS SEC Health Physics Team Leader and approved 

by the ADS (or by their respective designees). 

6.1.7.1 If a final professional judgment is not provided within 75 calendar days, 

the SEC Health Physics Team Leader will brief the DCAS Director, 

Deputy Director, and the ADS on the issues that are causing the delay. 

After evaluating the supporting documentation submitted at that time 

with the Deputy Director and the ADS, the Director shall determine 

whether: i) the professional judgment should be completed directly, 

based on currently available information; or ii) staff should continue to 

work with the petitioner to help him/her qualify the petition. 

6.1.7.2 If a petitioner repeatedly submits new information after the consult call 

in an attempt to get a petition qualified, a considerable number of the 

180 calendar days for completing an the SEC evaluation report may 

elapse. If 75 calendar days have been spent trying to qualify a petition, 

staff must notify the DCAS Director that additional qualification time is 

required, along with the reason(s) why, and that completion of the 

evaluation within 180 days may be affected. 

6.1.8 Based upon new information, NIOSH may reconsider a decision that a petition 

does not satisfy the qualification requirements. For purposes of these criteria, the 

date of the receipt of the new information that leads to the petition’s qualification 

will be the new submittal date. All information previously submitted by the 

petitioner will be added to the qualified petition’s file. 

6.1.9 For petitions which initially, or after addressing deficiencies, meet all relevant 

requirements under 42 C.F.R. §§ 83.7 - 83.9, proceed to subsection 6.3. For 

petitions that do not satisfy all relevant requirements under 42 C.F.R. §§ 83.7 - 

83.9, notify petitioners in writing. 

6.1.9.1 Upon request by the Director of DCAS (or designee), prepare for 

his/her signature a letter to the petitioner(s) that notifies the petitioner(s) 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 16 of 48

 

of any requirements that are not met by the petition, providing a 

summary of prior discussions with the petitioner(s) concerning such 

deficiencies, and providing guidance on how such deficiencies could be 

remedied, if possible. The letter should notify the petitioner(s) of a 30- 

calendar-day time limit to remedy the identified deficiencies, or of a 

specific extended time period when an extension has been granted. Use 

standard format and prepared text inserts. The Director of DCAS (or 

designee) is solely authorized to issue such notification. 

Provide further oral or written guidance to the petitioner(s) upon request 

and to a reasonable extent. Document all oral and written 

communications with the petitioner(s) with appropriate annotation to the 

administrative record (both hard copy file and in OSA). Any verbal 

guidance provided to the petitioner addressing substantive issues must 

also be documented in a follow-up letter to the petitioner. 

6.1.10 Notify the SEC Health Physics Team Leader of DCAS (or designee) of petitions 

that remain deficient after 30 calendar days or an extended period, if granted, 

from the date of notification to the petitioner(s) under step 6.1.6, reporting any 

oral or written communications that have occurred during this period. A draft 

notification letter should be prepared for the SEC Health Physics Team Leader (or 

designee) and Office of General Counsel (OGC) for review prior to the expiration 

of the 30 days, in order to expedite issuance of this final letter. 

6.1.11 Thirty calendar days after the written notice of deficiency (step 6.1.6.1), the 

Director of DCAS will establish and notify the petitioner(s) of proposed findings 

that a petition fails to meet the specified requirements, as well as the basis for this 

finding. The Director is solely authorized to issue such notification, which must 

be appropriately redacted to protect the privacy of individuals, and must be 

reviewed by OGC prior to being sent to the petitioner(s). Include in the 

notification to the petitioner(s) information about the right to seek an 

administrative review of the proposed findings within 30 calendar days after the

notice, and a copy of, or reference to, the associated procedures for requesting 

such a review.

6.1.12 Proposed findings that a petition fails to meet the specified qualification 

requirements are subject to administrative review, as specified under 42 C.F.R. § 

83.11. Upon the written request of the petitioner(s) pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 

83.11(c), the Director of NIOSH will appoint three HHS personnel to conduct a 

review. Such personnel will not have ever been employed at the DOE site in 

question or by DOE headquarters offices responsible for the DOE site in question, 

nor will they have ever been employed by DCAS. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 17 of 48

 

6.1.12.1 If an administrative review is conducted, upon the appointment of 

reviewers, the administrative record associated with the petition must be 

provided to the reviewers. The administrative record will include the 

petition request, the petition review, related records, materials and 

communications, and the request by the petitioner(s) for a review of the 

proposed finding. The panel must complete its review of the proposed 

finding within 30 work days of the petitioner’s request. 

6.1.12.2 Upon the completion of an administrative review, the Director of 

NIOSH will directly transmit to the petitioner(s) a report on the review 

and its outcome, which must be reviewed by OGC prior to being sent to 

the petitioner(s). Enter the report and associated transmittal 

communications into the administrative record for the petition. 

6.1.13 If a request for an administrative review is not received from the petitioner(s) 

within 31 calendar days of notification of a proposed finding that a petition fails 

to meet specified qualification requirements, the proposed finding becomes a final 

decision. Provide to the SEC Health Physics Team Leader (or designee), for the 

signature of the Director of DCAS, a draft notice to the petitioners documenting 

that the petitioners did not request a review and that the proposed finding now 

represents a final decision. This notice must be reviewed by OGC prior to being 

sent to the petitioner(s). A signed copy of the final notice shall be entered into the 

administrative record.

6.1.14 For any petition for which the petitioner(s) had to revise the petition before it 

could qualify for evaluation, restart the qualification review process at step 6.1.2

of this procedure, focusing on the new information, but considering all 

information provided up to the point of the start of the re-review.

6.1.15 A decision to deny a petition which failed to meet the qualification requirements 

may be reconsidered if new information relevant to the class becomes available to 

DCAS. Review the new information to determine its applicability to qualifying 

the petition. DCAS or technical contractor staff should notify the SEC Health 

Physics Team Leader (or designee) when new information is identified that is 

relevant to a class of employees whose petition has been denied. If the new 

information is found sufficient to reconsider the qualification of the petition, 

restart the qualification review process at step 6.1.2 of this procedure, focusing on 

the new information, but considering all information provided up to the point of 

the start of the re-review.

6.1.16 The submitter(s) of a deficient petition may submit a new petition for the identical 

class of employees at any time on the basis of new information. In such cases, the 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 18 of 48

 

normal qualification review process for new petitions would be followed, 

beginning at step 6.1.1. The new petition may, if appropriate, be combined with 

the original petition (step 6.1.4) 

6.2 Provide notification to petitioners, the Board, and the public of a petition that has been 

selected for evaluation. Notification should also be given for any additional potential 

class identified during the review of a petition under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14 (see step 6.5.4) 

for which an evaluation is to be initiated. 

Note: The steps under subsection 6.2 provide guidance for issuing appropriate 

notification to petitioners, the Board, and the public that a petition will be evaluated by 

DCAS, the Board, and HHS because it meets the requirements of subsection 6.1. 

6.2.1 Provide written notification to the petitioner(s) that their petition will be 

evaluated. Notification should include the appropriate standard notification letter 

and the SEC Evaluation Process Summary (Attachment 1).

6.2.2 The Director of DCAS (or designee) will issue the notification to the petitioner(s). 

6.2.3 Prepare and submit to the Director of DCAS (or designee) an evaluation package 

for the Board, which must be appropriately redacted to protect the privacy of 

individuals, and must be reviewed by OGC prior to being sent to the Board. The 

evaluation package should include the following: (A) the petition or petitions 

(multiple petitions may have been received representing a single class of 

employees) and (B) an evaluation plan for the class addressed in the petition(s). 

The evaluation plan should include the following, as required under 42 C.F.R. § 

83.12(b) and (c): (1) an initial, proposed definition for the class of employees 

based on the petition, when applicable, and on DCAS information that would 

establish a definition (for petitions submitted under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14), or modify 

the definition proposed by the petitioner(s), and (2) a list of activities for 

evaluating the radiation exposure potential of the class of employees and the 

adequacy of existing records and information to support dose reconstructions for 

members of the class of employees. 

6.2.4 If resources are available, initiate work to evaluate the petition immediately. In 

accordance with 42 C.F.R. § 83.12(d), DCAS may begin the evaluation prior to 

presenting the petition and evaluation plan to the Board. 

6.2.5 Prepare a monthly Federal Register Notice (when necessary) notifying the public 

of the decision(s) to evaluate petitions.
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 19 of 48

 

6.2.6 Upon publication of the Federal Register Notice, post the notice to the 

NIOSH/DCAS Web page. DCAS may also disseminate the notice through direct 

and media contacts. 

6.3 Establish time-line decision points for evaluating an SEC petition. 

Note: The steps and procedures under section 6.3 are to be used as decision points during 

the evaluation process to ensure DCAS management is made aware of issues associated 

with an SEC petition evaluation that could affect the timely completion of the petition 

and provide insurance that decisions made in support of the evaluation are in accordance 

with current policies and procedures. 

6.3.1 Starting from the date a petition qualified, DCAS or its technical support 

contractor shall promptly develop and submit a detailed evaluation plan 

documented in an SEC Evaluation Report project planning chart that identifies the 

process and timeline for submitting an SEC Petition Evaluation Report. 

6.3.1.1 There may be instances when, in developing the detailed evaluation 

plan and performing the evaluation, it becomes clear that the evaluation 

cannot be completed within the 180-calendar-day period. This may be 

caused by one or more of the following: an abnormally long 

qualification period, a very broad class and time period for evaluation 

(e.g., all Hanford employees 1942 through 1996), data captures delayed 

for numerous reasons (e.g., legal issues, classification issues, DOE 

funding, site access limitations), DOE/DOL resolution of facility 

designation issues identified during the evaluation, and other possible 

factors outside DCAS’ control. As soon as such a situation arises, staff 

shall inform the Director of DCAS. If the DCAS Director approves an 

extension of time, he shall direct staff to notify the petitioner, Advisory 

Board, Designated Federal Official for the Advisory Board, and 

Congressional liaison of the delay. They should also be informed of the 

reasons for the delay and the expected completion date of the report. 

6.3.1.2 Any time the 180-calendar-day timeline is in jeopardy of not being met, 

the DCAS Director shall be provided with the following information: a 

description of the petition and the class being evaluated, a description 

of the issue that is delaying the completion of the evaluation, a 

description of how the issue is being resolved and a timeline for 

completion, a statement explaining whether additional resources can be 

applied to meet the original deadline or reduce the delay and whether 

utilizing those resources may affect other projects, and a statement 

describing the SEC class that would have to be proposed in order to 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 20 of 48

 

resolve the issue (see 6.3.1.3 below). This information will be used by 

the DCAS Director to make an informed decision about whether to 

approve an extension of time. 

6.3.1.3 Should the DCAS Director determine that the information necessary to 

complete the evaluation of the petition will not be available on a timely 

basis, he may direct DCAS to complete its petition evaluation based on 

the information at hand, which may result in an addition of an SEC 

class. If an extension of time is required to support a data capture 

because the data are not readily available from the site, the DCAS 

Director will only approve an extension of time beyond 360 calendar 

days of receipt of a petition where circumstances indicate that data will 

be available within a recognizable and reasonable time frame. 

6.3.1.4 If an extension of time is granted, the DCAS ER Lead and the DCAS 

SEC Health Physics Team Leader will provide a status update on 

completion of the evaluation to the DCAS Director, Deputy Director, 

and the ADS every 90 calendar days. 

6.4 Evaluate a petition qualifying for evaluation under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13.

 

6.4.1 The steps and procedures under subsection 6.4 provide guidance for DCAS to 

conduct its evaluation of a petition when the petitioner is not a claimant for whom 

DCAS has already found that it cannot complete a dose reconstruction. The 

guidance attempts to balance the NIOSH goal of addressing the issues raised by 

petitioners thoroughly, whenever possible, with the importance of timely 

completion of petition evaluations. For this purpose, it limits collecting records 

and information from sources outside of DCAS, whenever possible, but may also 

consider SEC issues raised by the Board, by the Board’s technical support 

contractor, or issues developed internally by DCAS. Procedures for determining 

feasibility include: (1) The principal guidelines for evaluating feasibility for 

petitions qualifying for evaluation under subsection 6.4 are established under 42 

C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1). (2) The technical issues involved in evaluating the 

availability and adequacy of records and information relevant to feasibility 

determinations are addressed in the implementation guidelines for internal and 

external dose reconstructions. These dose reconstruction guidelines generally 

explain the types of information that can be used in dose reconstructions, and 

approaches for examining the availability and adequacy of information, as well as 

describing how such information should be used. These guidelines also provide 

general guidance concerning how maximum doses can be estimated when 

necessary, and the information essential to such estimates, under section 5.3 of the 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 21 of 48

 

internal dose reconstruction guidelines (DCAS-IG-002) and sections 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 

3.2.3, 3.3.3, and 3.3.4 of the external dose reconstruction guidelines (DCAS-IG001). The efficiency measures in the internal dose reconstruction guidelines (e.g., 

high dose potential and low dose potential preliminary estimates), however, are 

not applicable to evaluating feasibility with respect to a class of employees (see 

step 6.4.6). (3) Subject to 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1) and the procedures provided 

under steps 6.4.9 and 6.4.10 below addressing timeliness, feasibility should be 

determined by evaluating the availability and adequacy of records and 

information in the order established by the hierarchy of dose reconstruction 

information specified under 42 C.F.R. § 82.2, addressing the informational 

sources, types, and the adequacy of information as specified under 42 C.F.R.,

parts 82 and 83, and under the DCAS implementation guidelines for dose 

reconstruction. Sites which have been issued site profiles will find that the 

profiles provide an important resource of information to assist in evaluating 

feasibility (recognizing, however, that petitioners, the Board, or internal DCAS

SEC developments may raise issues not yet identified through the site profile 

development process). (4) Positive determinations of feasibility under steps 6.4.1

and 6.4.6 – 6.4.8 must be applicable to dose reconstruction for any type of cancer; 

otherwise, dose reconstruction must be deemed not feasible for the class of 

employees. 

6.4.2 Procedures for determining the extent and specificity of evaluations supporting 

positive determinations: Positive determinations of feasibility under steps 6.4.1 

and 6.4. 7-6.4.9 are not required to be supported by evaluations that are more 

extensive or more specific in scope than the information provided by the 

petitioner(s) under 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(c)(2) to support the belief of the petitioner(s) 

concerning the infeasibility of dose reconstruction. A petition based on alleged 

informational deficiencies relating to a group of employees at a facility can be 

addressed by determining the availability and adequacy of such information for 

the group as a whole, without examining all potentially different subgroups or 

individuals thereof. A petition submitted on the basis of alleged informational 

deficiencies relating to particular individuals can be addressed by determining the 

availability and adequacy of information germane to dose reconstruction for those 

particular individuals. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 22 of 48

 

Example 1: The petition asserts that personnel monitoring was not conducted for a 

group of maintenance workers when they were engaged in a particular operation. 

An examination of records shows that the maintenance workers covered by the petition 

were not monitored while engaged in the particular operation, but that another group of 

maintenance workers were monitored while engaged in the same operation involving 

comparable exposure conditions at another location at the facility. 

This information might be sufficient to determine that dose reconstruction is feasible for 

the group of maintenance workers covered by the petition, while engaged in the particular 

operation. It would not be necessary to evaluate the availability and adequacy of records 

concerning the work of the group of maintenance workers while engaged in other 

operations not addressed by the petition.

Example 2: The petition asserts on the basis of the records of specific individual 

employees that personnel monitoring records are not available for employees who 

worked at facility “S” from 1943 – 1946. On the basis of this evidence, the petitioners 

believe dose reconstruction is not feasible for employees at the facility during this time 

period. 

An examination of records shows that the personnel monitoring program in place at 

facility “S” at that time relied on a “co-worker approach” to monitoring, such that not all 

workers who could have been monitored were monitored. The records also indicate that 

the individual cases identified are consistent with the co-worker monitoring practice 

employed at the time. 

This information might be sufficient to determine that dose reconstruction is generally 

feasible for employees who worked at facility “S” during this time period. It is not 

necessary to examine whether this finding is applicable to every employee who worked at 

the facility during the specified time period. In this case, the evaluation need only 

examine the circumstances of individuals for which the petitioners provided information 

specifically supporting their belief that dose reconstruction may not be feasible. 

Example 3: The petition asserts that employees who worked at facility “B” were not 

monitored during a particular operation that occurred in 1955. Based on this evidence, 

the petitioner believes that dose reconstruction is not feasible for employees who worked 

in the operation. 

An examination of records shows that DCAS has completed dose reconstructions without 

personnel monitoring data to estimate the radiation doses of employees who worked in 

the operation. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 23 of 48

 

This information might be sufficient to determine that dose reconstruction is generally 

feasible for employees who worked in the operation. It is not necessary for DCAS to 

examine whether this finding is applicable to any possible subgroups of employees who 

worked in the operation, as the information provided in the petition did not suggest 

feasibility issues associated with any specific subgroup of employees. 

6.4.3 From the date a petition is qualified, DCAS shall promptly develop an “issues 

matrix”, which includes issues that qualified the petition, issues from the Petition 

Matrix, any applicable SEC issues from an Advisory Board review of related 

technical documents and any other SEC issue of which DCAS or its technical 

support contractor is aware. Before finalization, this issues matrix must be 

approved by the DCAS Evaluation Team lead, the SEC Health Physics Team 

Leader and the Associate Director for Science. 

6.4.4 In evaluating the qualified SEC petition, the SEC Evaluation Team shall identify 

data gaps and how they can be resolved. For example, if data are currently 

unavailable, additional required data captures and interviews may be identified. 

The SEC Evaluation Team should identify alternative approaches for resolving 

issues and attempt to capture required data during the initial data capture to 

support all alternative approaches. In most cases, this can be done with minimal 

additional duration of the data capture. The project planning chart detailing the 

evaluation should be adjusted for the additional data capture as needed. 

6.4.5 The baseline project schedule for all DCAS SEC evaluations includes 92 calendar 

days for the completion of the petition evaluation, including approval by DCAS. 

This timeline is adjusted for each petition to reflect specific circumstances 

surrounding the petition. The items below reflect additional decision 

points/notification requirements in the evaluation phase, which may affect timely 

completion of the evaluation report.

6.4.5.1 If a required change in the project schedule pushes the evaluation report 

completion past the 180-calendar-day time frame, refer to sections 

6.3.1.1 - 6.3.1.3.

6.4.5.2 The DCAS Evaluation Team Lead should receive weekly status updates 

during the time that data captures or interviews are being scheduled and 

conducted. If delays are encountered, they should be reflected in the 

project schedule and discussed with both the DCAS Evaluation Team 

Lead and the DCAS SEC Health Physics Team Leader. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 24 of 48

 

6.4.5.3 If, after the initial data capture, the evaluation team determines that an 

alternative approach for resolution (necessitating additional data capture 

or additional interviews) is required, the Evaluation Team will draft a 

schedule that includes all tasks which must be completed to permit the 

alternative approach and the estimated amount of time necessary to 

complete them. If the amount of time required will extend the 

completion of the report beyond the 180-calendar-day time frame, or 

beyond the 360-calendar-day interval described in 6.3.1.3, the project 

team should prepare all of the items outlined in 6.3.1.2 above. The 

DCAS Evaluation Team Lead and the DCAS SEC Team Leader will 

then brief the DCAS Director, Deputy Director, and the Associate 

Director for Science, and the Director will act in accordance with 

6.3.1.3.

6.4.5.4 If the approach for resolving an issue is not a standard approach used in 

other approved documents, it should be discussed with the Associate 

Director for Science to ensure the approach is acceptable. 

6.4.6 Determine whether one or more dose reconstructions have been completed and/or 

initiated, demonstrating that dose reconstructions are feasible for the class of 

employees identified in the petition, or, if they are appropriate under step 6.4.2, 

for a subgroup thereof, in light of the information provided in the petition 

concerning the feasibility of estimating radiation doses for the class of employees 

identified in the petition. 

When such dose reconstructions are identified, consult the SEC Health Physics 

Team Leader to determine whether any such dose reconstructions have been, or 

are presently being considered by DOL’s Final Adjudication Branch (FAB),

pursuant to an objection by a claimant under 20 C.F.R. § 30.318 in response to a 

recommended decision by DOL to deny the claim. If so, do not use as examples 

of the feasibility of dose reconstruction any dose reconstructions which have been 

returned by the FAB for further consideration by HHS, or any dose 

reconstructions which are currently pending a FAB hearing or review, since this 

may take up to one year, per 20 C.F.R. § 30.316(c). 

Also, note that some previously completed dose reconstructions for individuals 

may not be applicable for demonstrating feasibility for the class of employees 

identified in the petition. For example, “efficiency” dose reconstructions (high 

dose potential or low dose potential preliminary estimates) performed to expedite 

certain claims may utilize approaches not appropriate for reconstructing the dose 

for individuals in the class under consideration (see step 6.4.1(2)). 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 25 of 48

 

6.4.6.1 If one or more dose reconstructions have been completed or initiated and 

demonstrate feasibility for the petitioning class of employees, go to step 

6.4.13.

6.4.6.2 If one or more dose reconstructions have been completed or initiated and 

they demonstrate feasibility only for a subgroup of the petitioning class 

of employees, as appropriate under 6.4.2, define two separate classes of 

employees, accordingly (one class of employees for which dose 

reconstruction is feasible, and one class for which feasibility must still 

be determined). Go to step 6.4.13 for the class for which dose 

reconstruction is feasible and go to step 6.4.7 for the class for which the 

feasibility of dose reconstruction must still be determined.

6.4.6.3 If dose reconstructions that have been completed or initiated do not 

demonstrate feasibility for any subgroup of the petitioning class of 

employees, go to step 6.4.7.

Example: The petition asserts on the basis of affidavits that employees who worked at 

facility “B”, a single building, were not monitored during two phases of a specified 

operation that occurred in 1955. Based on this evidence, the petitioner believes that dose 

reconstruction is not feasible for employees who worked in the operation. 

An examination of records shows that DCAS has completed dose reconstructions in 

which DCAS used area monitoring data, without personnel monitoring data, to estimate 

the radiation doses of employees who worked in the specified operation at facility “B.” 

The examination confirms, however, that there were two distinct phases of the operation, 

“phase 1” and “phase 2”. It also finds that exposures and record availability might differ 

substantially between these two phases, and documents that DCAS dose reconstructions 

have only addressed “phase 1.” 

This information might be sufficient to determine that dose reconstruction is generally 

feasible for employees who worked in “phase 1” of the operation at facility “B.” It is not 

necessary for DCAS to examine whether this finding is applicable to specific subgroups 

of employees who worked in “phase 1” of the operation, as distinctions concerning 

subgroups were not addressed by the evidence provided in the petition. This information 

is not sufficient to evaluate the feasibility of dose reconstruction for employees who 

worked in “phase 2.” The feasibility of dose reconstruction for employees who worked in 

“phase 2” should be evaluated further, treating these employees as a class distinct and 

apart from employees who worked in “phase 1.”
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 26 of 48

 

6.4.7 If current and/or completed dose reconstructions do not fully address the 

information provided by a petition, then determine whether personnel and/or area 

monitoring data are available and are adequate to conduct dose reconstructions for 

members of the petitioning class of employees, or, if appropriate under 6.4.2, for a 

subgroup thereof. 

In determining the adequacy of data for use in conducting dose reconstructions, 

the “pedigree” of the data should be considered before performing a feasibility 

evaluation. Data pedigree addresses the background, history, and origin of the 

data or any other factors which could affect its current accuracy. It requires 

looking at site methodologies that may have changed over time, primary, versus 

secondary, data sources and whether they match, and whether data are internally 

consistent. All these issues form the bedrock of the researcher’s confidence and 

subsequent conclusions about the data’s quality, credibility, reliability, 

representativeness, and sufficiency for determining the feasibility of dose 

reconstruction. The feasibility evaluation presupposes that data pedigree issues 

have been settled. 

6.4.7.1 If the personnel and/or area monitoring data are available and adequate 

to conduct dose reconstructions for the class of employees considered in 

this step, go to step 6.4.13.

6.4.7.2 If the personnel and/or area monitoring data are available and adequate 

to conduct dose reconstructions only for a subgroup of the class of 

employees considered in this step, as appropriate under 6.4.2, define two 

separate classes of employees accordingly (one class of employees for 

which dose reconstruction is feasible, and one class for which it is not). 

Go to step 6.4.13 for the class for which dose reconstruction is feasible 

and go to step 6.4.8 for the class for which personnel and/or area 

monitoring data are not available and adequate. 

6.4.7.3 If personnel and/or area monitoring data are not available and adequate 

to conduct dose reconstructions for any subgroup of the class of 

employees considered in this step, go to step 6.4.8.

6.4.8 If, under step 6.4.7, personnel and/or area monitoring data are not available and 

adequate to conduct dose reconstructions for members of the petitioning class of 

employees or a subgroup thereof, then determine whether the radiation source 

term, source, and process information are available and adequate to conduct dose 

reconstructions without monitoring data or in combination with any monitoring 

data available. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 27 of 48

 

6.4.8.1 If the radiation source term, source, or process information are available 

and adequate to conduct dose reconstructions without monitoring data or 

in combination with any monitoring data available, go to step 6.4.13.

6.4.8.2 If the radiation source term, source, or process information are available 

and adequate to conduct dose reconstructions only for a subgroup of the 

class of employees considered in this step, as appropriate under 6.4.2, 

define two separate classes of employees accordingly (one class of 

employees for which dose reconstruction is feasible, and one class for 

which it is not). Go to step 6.4.13 for the class for which dose 

reconstruction is feasible and go to step 6.4.15 for the class for which 

dose reconstruction is not feasible. 

6.4.8.3 If available radiation source term, source, and process information are 

not adequate to conduct dose reconstructions for any subgroup of the 

class of employees considered in this step, without monitoring data or in 

combination with any monitoring data available, go to step 6.4.14.

6.4.8.3.1 If there is no monitoring, source, source term, or process 

information from the site where the employee worked (i.e., 

the DOE or AWE facility addressed in the petition) to serve 

as the basis for a dose reconstruction, then a dose 

reconstruction is not feasible. Go to step 6.4.14. EEOICPA 

requires that probability of causation determinations be based 

on information from the site where the employee worked. 

Such information must, at a minimum, include some 

monitoring, source, source term, or process information from 

the site where the employee worked, rather than from a 

comparable site. This requirement does not limit DCAS to 

using only or primarily information from the site where the 

employee worked, but the dose reconstruction must have, as 

a basis, some information from the site where the employee 

worked. 

6.4.9 Timeliness Procedures: To achieve timeliness in conducting steps 6.4.7 and 6.4.8: 

(a) Research records and data in DCAS’s possession should be evaluated and 

used, if sufficient, without requesting additional records from DOE, an AWE, or 

other resources; (b) When records or information from DOE, an AWE, or another 

resource are necessary, request simultaneously the records or information for 

steps 6.4.7 and 6.4.8; (c) Minimize the scope and extent of records requests to 

support a timely evaluation (see procedures under step 6.4.11); (d) If records or 

information requested under (b) above are not provided within 60 days, or if a 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 28 of 48

 

resource indicates such records cannot be provided within 120 days, notify the 

DCAS SEC Health Physics Team Leader (or designee). 

6.4.10 Timeliness Policy: Under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(b), the Director of DCAS may 

determine that records and/or information requested from DOE, an AWE, or 

another resource to evaluate a petition is not, or will not be, available on a timely 

basis. Such a determination will be treated, for the purposes of the petition 

evaluation, as equivalent to a finding that the records and/or information 

requested are not available. 

6.4.10.1 Before the Director of DCAS makes such a determination, the 

resource(s) potentially in possession of such records and/or 

information will be allowed a reasonable amount of time, as 

determined by the Director of DCAS, to provide the records 

and/or information 

6.4.10.2 Such a determination may take into account the types and 

quantity of records and/or information requested from the 

resource, as well as any other factors that might be relevant to the 

judgment under paragraph (1) regarding the amount of time that 

is reasonable to provide the records and/or information, which 

the Director of DCAS would decide on a case-by-case basis. 

6.4.11 Guideline for Requesting Records and Information: Potential sources of 

information for determining feasibility include: (1) The petition(s); (2) DOE and 

AWE facility records and information; (3) Potential members of the class and 

their survivors; (4) Labor organizations during the relevant period of employment; 

(5) Managers, radiation safety officials, and other witnesses; (6) NIOSH records 

from epidemiological research on DOE populations and records from dose 

reconstructions; (7) Records from research, dose reconstructions, medical 

screening programs, and other activities conducted to evaluate the health and/or 

radiation exposures of employees; and (8) Other sources. 

DCAS should only request such records and information from resources external 

to DCAS that are necessary to make feasibility determinations with respect to the 

class, and, when necessary, to evaluate issues of health endangerment with respect 

to the class. The purpose of requesting records is not to obtain all the records that 

might be required to actually conduct dose reconstructions for members of the 

class of employees. For example, it may only be necessary to obtain a sample of 

personnel and/or area monitoring records pertaining to the class to evaluate the 

feasibility of dose reconstruction. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 29 of 48

 

Note 1: The purpose of requesting personnel records, when necessary, is to obtain 

reasonable evidence to evaluate more general information provided by the resource to 

determine whether dose reconstruction is feasible. Do not request a larger sample of 

records than is necessary, since this can affect the timeliness of the response. 

Note 2: In cases in which the evaluation has already determined the feasibility of dose 

reconstruction but the petition raised issues that have not been fully addressed, achieving 

a reasonable balance between comprehensiveness and timeliness is important. If 

conducting a comprehensive evaluation would delay the completion of the petition 

evaluation substantially (e.g., by more than 60 days), consult with the SEC Health 

Physics Team Leader (or designee). It may be appropriate to complete the petition 

evaluation sooner, based on minimally sufficient information, and to complete the 

evaluation of monitoring practices separately. 

6.4.12 Once all issues have been resolved, the evaluation team should meet with the 

DCAS SEC Team Leader, DCAS Dose Reconstruction Team Leader, and the 

ADS to review results of the evaluation. The team should: (i) describe the facility 

(including facility operations), the DOE facility designation, and the petition. The 

petition description should include: the petitioner-proposed class; the class 

evaluated; and the basis or bases for qualification.; (ii) describe the issues 

identified in the issues matrix; (iii) discuss the data available; (iv) describe the 

data captures and interviews conducted to resolve the issues; and (v) discuss 

proposed resolutions of the issues and any class or classes that are being 

recommended. If a class is being recommended, provide justification for any 

limitations of the class. For example, if the proposed class ends before the end of 

the covered period, justification must be provided as to why dose reconstruction 

became feasible at that time. 

If, after the completion of the meeting, the ADS is not satisfied with the resolution 

of an issue, a determination must be made by the project team and the ADS

whether additional work could resolve the issues, and if that resolution will 

require exceeding the 180-calendar-day timeframe or the 360-calendar-day 

interval described in 6.3.1.3. If such a determination is made, the DCAS 

Evaluation Team Lead and the DCAS SEC Health Physics Team Leader will 

inform the DCAS Director and provide the information identified in 6.3.1.2

above. The Director will act in accordance with 6.3.1.3.

6.4.13 For classes of employees for which dose reconstruction is feasible (i.e., when it is 

feasible to estimate doses with sufficient accuracy), prepare a finding explaining 

the basis for the determination. Document the findings of the feasibility 

determination in the Evaluation Report (subsection 6.6).
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 30 of 48

 

6.4.13.1 Describe the approach or approaches to dose reconstruction that could 

be used. 

6.4.13.2 Procedures for explaining feasibility when dose reconstruction is 

feasible: (1) Address directly the rationale and information provided by 

the petitioner(s) to support the petition. Explain whether the rationale 

and information are accurate and relevant, and explain why they are not 

an impediment to dose reconstruction. (2) Identify the types and 

limitations of data that are available for dose reconstruction and include 

an explanation of methods that could be used to conduct dose 

reconstructions using these types of data and accounting for the 

limitations specified. (3) Reference relevant sections of the DCAS dose 

reconstruction implementation guidelines and other relevant documents 

that relate to the approach or approaches that could be used for the dose 

reconstructions discussed. (4) Explain that the methods used for actual 

dose reconstructions for members of the class of employees may differ 

from the methods discussed, based on the work history, cancer, and 

other characteristics of the individual employee whose doses are being 

reconstructed, and based on the records available at the time the dose 

reconstruction is conducted. 

6.4.13.3 As a demonstration of the feasibility of reconstructing doses for 

members of the class of employees using the identified approach(es) 

(step 6.4.13.1), and considering any limitations of the data or 

information (step 6.4.13.2), perform “example” (or sample) dose 

reconstructions for a hypothetical worker. Several scenarios covering 

the range of potential job and/or incident exposures should be used in 

the dose reconstructions. The scenarios created, as well as the 

demographic parameters of the hypothetical worker and the cancer 

organs selected to be used in the example dose reconstruction, should be 

chosen so as to demonstrate that the dose for the maximally exposed 

individual can be bounded, using available data and information. In 

some cases, actual data may be available from an existing claim for a 

worker with a similar work description. 

6.4.14 For classes of employees for which dose reconstruction is not feasible, prepare a 

finding explaining the basis of the determination. 

6.4.14.1 Describe the informational limitations established by the DCAS 

evaluation, and explain why these limitations make it infeasible for 

DCAS to complete dose reconstructions for the class of employees. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 31 of 48

 

6.4.14.2 Procedures for explaining feasibility when dose reconstruction is not 

feasible: (1) Identify the information that, at minimum, must be 

available to reconstruct the doses of members of the class of employees,

and summarize how such information would be used in dose 

reconstructions. (2) Summarize the actions taken to obtain sufficient 

information for dose reconstruction. (3) Identify the information that 

DCAS obtained and the necessary information that DCAS was unable to 

obtain, and document how DCAS determined that necessary information 

is not available. (4) Although DCAS may conclude that there are 

inadequate data to permit sufficiently accurate reconstruction of doses 

for employees in the class, any available data that may reside in an 

individual’s file (and that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose 

reconstruction processes or procedures) could be used to support partial 

dose reconstructions (i.e., does not include all elements of radiation 

dose) for claimants not qualifying for inclusion in the SEC who incur a 

cancer not included among the 22 specified SEC cancers and, hence,

require a dose reconstruction (or they would otherwise be left without a 

remedy).

6.4.15 For classes of employees for which dose reconstruction is not feasible, determine 

if there is a reasonable likelihood that radiation doses may have endangered the 

health of members of the class. Evaluate potential health endangerment due to 1) 

exposure during incidents with exceptionally high-level radiation exposures or 2) 

chronic exposures at lower levels of radiation. 

6.4.15.1 Characterize the source(s) and circumstances of radiation exposure to 

the class of employees. 

6.4.15.2 Establish whether the sources and circumstances indicate that the class 

of employees was likely to have received exceptionally high-level 

radiation exposures, comparable to the levels of exposure in nuclear 

criticality incidents. The analysis should use comparative information 

when feasible, considering comparable exposure incidents in which 

radiation levels or related health effects were documented. 

6.4.15.3 For the purpose of determination of health endangerment involving 

incidents of exceptionally high-level radiation exposure, there is no 

minimum time requirement (42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3)(i) states that any 

duration of unprotected exposure could cause a specified cancer). 

Exceptionally high levels of radiation exposure, as defined, typically have 

resulted from a recognized breakdown of radiological controls, and such 

levels of exposure typically cause acute, radiation-related health effects.
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 32 of 48

 

6.4.15.4 If no evidence is found that members of the class experienced a discrete 

incident of high-level radiation exposure, then determine if some 

workers in the class may have accumulated chronic radiation exposures 

through intakes of radionuclides and/or from direct exposure to 

radioactive materials. For such non-discrete low-level exposures, the 

minimum duration of employment to satisfy the health endangerment 

criterion, per 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3)(ii), is a number of work days 

aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this 

employment or in combination with work days within the parameters 

established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

6.4.16 Define the class or classes of employees evaluated in response to the petition. 

6.4.16.1 Define the class (or classes), taking into account the class definition 

proposed by the petition and modified as necessary, resulting from the 

evaluation of the petition. A defined class should comprise a group of 

employees for whom the availability of data and information on 

radiation exposures is comparable. If there are dissimilarities in such 

information sufficient that the evaluation produces separate 

determinations of feasibility of dose reconstruction, then separate classes 

may need to be defined. For example, if the petition evaluation were to 

find that it is feasible to conduct dose reconstructions for one group of 

employees using monitoring data and a second group using source term 

and process data, and that it is not feasible to conduct dose 

reconstructions for a third group of employees, then define three classes 

of employees. 

6.4.16.2 Define the class of employees as completely and precisely as possible. 

The definitions are important to potential petitioners, who need to be 

able to recognize whether or not they are included in the class. The 

definitions are also important to DOL, which will make compensation 

decisions on the basis of class definitions for classes of employees that 

are added to the Cohort. The definition should provide information 

sufficient to clearly distinguish between employees who are included in,

and those who are excluded from, the class. In addition to addressing the 

employment parameters defined under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(2), consider 

whether it is necessary to specify work operations, employers (e.g., 

contractor, subcontractor), work schedule, and/or any other 

characteristics that help precisely define the membership of the class of 

employees. Also, note that a class should always be defined by generic 

employment parameters as described above; it may not name individuals 

and it must potentially include more than one individual. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 33 of 48

 

6.4.16.2.1 The Director of DCAS (or designee) will consult with DOL 

to determine whether the class definition is specified by 

parameters that will allow DOL to determine whether a 

claimant is, or is not, a member of the class. In some cases, it 

is possible that DCAS would be able to define a class of 

employees by more precise parameters than those DOL 

would be able to apply in making such determinations. In 

such cases, DCAS should consider whether to limit the class 

definition to the parameters of utility to DOL. The feasibility 

determination under step 6.4.14.2 could separately define the 

more specific class parameters upon which the determination 

is based. 

6.4.16.3 For each class of employees for which dose reconstruction is not 

feasible, indicate within the class definition whether the minimum 250- 

work-days employment requirement for health endangerment applies to 

the class of employees, based on the analysis under step 6.4.15.

6.4.16.4 For each class of employees for which the 250-work-days employment 

requirement for health endangerment applies, include a statement 

specifying that health was endangered for those workers who were 

employed for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days 

within the parameters established for the class, or in combination with 

work days within the parameters established for one or more other 

classes of employees in the SEC. 

6.5 Evaluate the petition qualifying for evaluation under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14, for a claimant for 

whom DCAS was unable to complete a dose reconstruction. 

Note: The steps and procedures under subsection 6.5 provide guidance for DCAS to 

evaluate a petition by a claimant for whom DCAS found it was unable to complete a dose 

reconstruction. In these situations, as provided for by 42 C.F.R. § 83.14, DCAS has 

already determined that it is not feasible to estimate the levels of radiation doses of 

individual members of the class with sufficient accuracy. This guidance concerns the 

remaining steps of defining the class of employees, addressing health endangerment, and 

determining whether there may be a more extensive class of employees that requires 

further evaluation and consideration for addition to the Cohort as a separate class of 

employees. 

6.5.1 Define the class of employees for whom dose reconstruction is not feasible. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 34 of 48

 

6.5.1.1 Review the information obtained by DCAS and the rationale justifying 

the DCAS finding that a dose reconstruction could not be completed for 

the employee(s) identified in the petition. 

6.5.1.2 Define the class of employees for which the information under step 

6.5.1.1 applies, using the procedures under 6.4.16. As noted under step 

6.4.16.2, a class should always be defined by generic employment 

parameters; it may not name individuals and it must potentially include 

more than one individual. 

6.5.2 Evaluate the likelihood that radiation doses may have endangered the health of 

members of the class of employees defined under step 6.5.1. Use the procedure 

under step 6.4.15.

6.5.3 Based on the evaluation under step 6.5.2 and the definition under step 6.5.1, 

define a class of employees for which it can be determined that: (1) it is not 

feasible to estimate the radiation doses of individual members of the class of 

employees with sufficient accuracy; and (2) there is a reasonable likelihood that 

such radiation dose may have endangered the health of members of the class of 

employees. For the class of employees defined under this step, go to subsection 

6.6 to prepare a report of the evaluation findings.

6.5.4 Determine whether the existing information under 6.4.16.1 indicates the potential 

for another class of employees for which dose reconstruction might not be 

feasible, beyond the scope of the group defined under step 6.4.16.2. If such a 

potential exists, initiate an evaluation under subsection 6.2. 

Example: DCAS found it could not complete a dose reconstruction for employee John 

Q. Public. Mr. Public was exposed to radiation during an incident for which there were 

no monitoring data and inadequate source term and process data. Under step 6.5.1.2, all 

workers employed in the immediate area of the incident, or in responding to the incident,

were included in the group. However, the records reviewed during the attempted dose 

reconstruction for Mr. Public were not sufficient to determine whether workers were 

employed in areas proximate to the incident and might have been similarly exposed. This 

possibility will need further investigation. 

6.6 Prepare an evaluation report responding to the petition(s).

Note: The steps and procedures under subsection 6.6 provide guidance for DCAS to 

prepare a report of its evaluation findings. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 35 of 48

 

6.6.1 For petitions for classes that qualified under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13, prepare an 

evaluation report according to the requirements of 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(d). Use the 

appropriate DCAS template for this report from Attachment 1.

6.6.2 For petitions qualified under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14, prepare an evaluation report 

according to the requirements of 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(d)(1)-(3) and (5) and § 

83.14(b). The report must also provide notification of whether a determination has 

been made under step 6.5.4 that the existing information under step 6.5.1.1

indicates the potential for another class of employees for which dose 

reconstruction might not be feasible, extending beyond the scope of the group 

defined under step 6.5.1.2. If such a potential exists, explain that an evaluation 

under subsection 6.4 will be conducted, and explain the basis for this decision. 

Use the appropriate DCAS template from Attachment 1 for this report, and be 

certain that appropriate redactions have been made to protect the privacy of 

individuals. 

6.6.3 OGC must review the petition evaluation report for privacy and other legal 

considerations and the Director of DCAS must approve it before it can be 

transmitted to the Board and other parties under step 6.7. 

6.7 Transmit and publicize the evaluation report. 

Note: The steps under subsection 6.7 provide guidance for DCAS to transmit its 

evaluation findings to petitioners, the Board, and the public. 

6.7.1 The report of evaluation findings prepared under subsection 6.6 must be 

completed and submitted to the Board within 180 calendar days of DCAS 

receiving the petition. The 180 calendar days shall not include: days when the 

petitioner is remedying deficiencies reported by DCAS under step 6.1.6, days 

when the petitioner may request review of a proposed finding under step 6.1.8, or 

days when conducting an administrative review under step 6.1.9.

6.7.2 Transmit the approved evaluation report to the petitioner(s) and members of the 

Board as soon as possible after approval and post on the NIOSH/DCAS website. 

6.7.3 Prepare an entry for the Federal Register Notice of the next Board meeting,

summarizing the petition and the findings of the DCAS evaluation report. This 

notice must appropriately protect the privacy of individuals, and must be reviewed 

by OGC prior to being sent to the Federal Register. 

6.7.4 Post the Federal Register Notice on the NIOSH/DCAS website as soon as 

possible after publication.
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 36 of 48

 

6.7.5 If, for some reason, NIOSH is unable to submit the report to the Board within 180 

calendar days, DCAS will, as soon as it is apparent that the 180 period will be 

exceeded, submit a letter to the Board explaining the reasons and proposing a new 

report submittal date. Notification will also be sent to the petitioners, the 

Congressional Liaison, and the Designated Federal Official. 

6.8 Schedule a presentation to the Board. 

Note: The procedures under subsection 6.8 provide guidance for DCAS to schedule a 

presentation of the evaluation report prepared under step 6.7 to the Board. 

6.8.1 Schedule the presentation to the Board of the petition and the DCAS evaluation as 

soon as possible, taking into account such matters as the need for Board members 

to review the report prior to the meeting, the requirements of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), and, when possible, the scheduling needs of the 

petitioner(s). 

6.8.2 It is essential to obtain the Board’s review of petitions qualifying under 42 C.F.R.

§ 83.14 as soon as possible, since these petitions involve a claim for which DCAS 

has already determined that dose reconstruction is not feasible, meaning that 

adjudication of the claim by DOL relies on completion of the petition evaluation 

process. Make every effort to schedule consideration of these petitions as soon as 

possible, consistent with step 6.8.1. 

6.8.3 As provided in 42 C.F.R. § 83.15(b), in considering the petition, both DCAS and 

the members of the Board will take all steps necessary to prevent the disclosure of 

information of a personal nature, concerning the petitioners or others, where 

disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

This may include such steps as making appropriate redactions of documents and 

holding closed meetings of the Board under FACA.

6.8.4 Upon request of the Board, DCAS may conduct further evaluation of a petition. 

If DCAS conducts further evaluation, it will report new findings to the Board and 

the petitioner(s). 

6.9 Establish a proposed decision on the outcome of the petition(s).

Note: The steps and procedures under subsection 6.9 provide guidance for DCAS to 

support the Director of NIOSH in establishing proposed decisions. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 37 of 48

 

6.9.1 Proposed decisions will take into account the petition, the DCAS evaluation(s), 

and the report and recommendations of the Board, and may also take into account 

other information presented or submitted to the Board, as well as the deliberations 

of the Board. 

6.9.2 Proposed decisions must comply with the provisions of 42 C.F.R. §§ 83.13(c) or 

83.14(b), as appropriate. 

6.9.3 A single petition may result in one or more proposed decisions to add a class of 

employees to the Cohort and/or to deny adding a class of employees to the 

Cohort. This depends on the number of separate classes of employees defined by 

the Director of NIOSH, based on the information identified under step 6.4.16.

6.9.4 The Director of NIOSH will issue the proposed decision. 

6.9.5 DCAS will prepare a report of the proposed decision, which must be 

appropriately redacted to protect the privacy of individuals, and must be reviewed 

by OGC prior to being sent to the Secretary. The report of the proposed decision 

must include a detailed definition of the class of employees, an iteration of the 

relevant criteria, as specified under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c), and a summary of the 

information and findings on which the proposed decision is based. 

6.9.6 The Director of NIOSH (or designee) must approve the report. 

6.10 Transmit proposed decisions to the Board and to the Secretary.

Note: The steps and procedures under subsection 6.10 provide guidance for DCAS to 

transmit proposed decisions established by the Director of NIOSH. 

6.10.1 Transmit the approved report(s) to the Board and to the Secretary of HHS as soon 

as possible after approval. If a petition resulted in multiple decisions and reports, 

the reports should be accompanied by a summary explaining the basis for 

distinguishing multiple classes of employees. 

6.11 Basis for the Secretary’s (or designee’s) making and reporting a final decision: 

 Note: The Secretary of HHS (or designee) will make a final decision whether or not to 

add a class of employees to the Special Exposure Cohort.
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 38 of 48

 

6.11.1 The Secretary of HHS (or designee) will make the final decision to add or deny 

adding a class to the Cohort after considering information and recommendations 

provided to the Secretary (or designee) by NIOSH and the Board. 

6.11.1.1 The final report will include the decision to add or deny adding a class to 

the Special Exposure Cohort, an iteration of the relevant criteria, as 

specified under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c), for adding or denying the addition 

of the class, a summary of the information and findings on which the 

decision is based and the definition of the class. 

6.11.2 Transmit a report of the final decision, which must be appropriately redacted to 

protect the privacy of individuals, and must be reviewed by OGC, to the 

petitioner(s). Transmit the approved report(s) to the petitioner(s) as soon as 

possible after approval. The report(s) should be accompanied by a transmittal 

letter that notifies the petitioner(s) of the procedures and requirements for 

contesting a final decision. If a petition results in multiple decisions and reports, 

the reports should be accompanied by a summary explaining the basis for 

distinguishing multiple classes of employees. 

6.11.3 Publish a notice, which must be appropriately redacted to protect the privacy of 

individuals, and must be reviewed by OGC, summarizing the final decision in the 

Federal Register.

6.12 If a class which the Board has recommended be designated is found not to meet the 

statutory criteria for adding a class, prepare for the Secretary a determination to be 

submitted to Congress within 30 calendar days following receipt of the Board’s 

recommendation.

6.13 Transmit and publicize final decisions.

Note: The steps and procedures under subsection 6.13 provide guidance for DCAS to 

transmit and publicize final decisions established by the Secretary of HHS. When the 

Secretary (or designee) makes the determination to add a class of employees to the 

Cohort, a report must be submitted to Congress. A final decision to add a class to the 

Cohort by the Secretary (or designee) will take effect 30 days after the submission of the 

report to Congress, unless Congress takes an action that reverses or expedites the 

designation. 

6.13.1 Prepare a report on the final decision of the Secretary of HHS to designate a class 

for addition to the SEC, or not to add a class. The report on the final decision 

must include a definition of the class of employees, an iteration of the relevant 

criteria, as specified under 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(a), and a summary of the 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 39 of 48

 

information and findings on which the final decision is based. This report must 

be reviewed by OGC prior to being sent to the Secretary. 

6.13.2 Reports of final decisions must be approved by the Secretary of HHS (or 

designee). 

6.13.2.1 If the Secretary (or designee) makes a final determination not to add a 

class of employees to the Special Exposure Cohort, there is no 

congressional review of that designation, and it immediately becomes a 

final agency decision. Go to step 6.13.3.

6.13.2.2 If the Secretary (or designee) designates a class of employees to be 

added to the Cohort, the Secretary (or designee) will transmit a report of 

the designation to Congress, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(a). 

6.13.2.2.1 The report to Congress will provide the definition of the class of 

employees covered by the designation, and the criteria and findings 

upon which the designation was based. The report will be 

appropriately redacted to protect the privacy of individuals, and be 

reviewed by OGC. If the Secretary adds a class that does not 

include a class recommended by the Board, then the 30-calendarday deadline for transmittal of the decision to Congress does not 

apply. 

6.13.2.2.2 If the Secretary adds a class inclusive of a class which the Board 

has recommended be designated, then the Secretary (or designee) 

will transmit a report to Congress within 30 calendar days 

following receipt of the Board’s recommendation in accordance 

with 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(a), providing the designation, definition of 

the class covered, and the criteria and findings upon which 

designation was based. The report will be appropriately redacted 

to protect the privacy of individuals, and be reviewed by OGC. 

6.13.2.2.3 A decision of the Secretary (or designee) to add a class of 

employees to the Cohort will take effect 30 calendar days after the 

date on which the report of the Secretary (or designee) is submitted 

to Congress, unless Congress takes an action that reverses or 

expedites the effect of the designation. 

6.13.3 Transmit the approved report to the petitioner(s) pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 83.16(b). 

This report must be appropriately redacted to protect the privacy of individuals, 

and must be reviewed by OGC prior to being sent to the petitioner(s). 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 40 of 48

 

6.13.3.1 If the decision is to add a class of employees, the report must clearly 

indicate that the designation of additional class members is not final 

until after the expiration of the 30-day congressional review period, or 

when Congress takes an action that reverses or expedites the 

designation, whichever comes first. 

6.13.3.2 The report should indicate that a final report, inclusive of congressional 

action, will be issued at the end of the 30-day congressional review 

period, or after Congress takes an action that reverses or expedites the 

designation, whichever comes first. If the report is a final determination 

not to add a class of employees, it should indicate that it is a final agency 

decision. 

6.13.4 Post the redacted and OGC-cleared report on the NIOSH/DCAS website.

6.13.5 Prepare and publish a Federal Register Notice summarizing the final decision. 

This notice must appropriately protect the privacy of individuals, and must be 

reviewed by OGC prior to being sent to the Federal Register. 

6.14 Transmit and publicize the outcome of congressional review.

Note: The steps and procedures under subsection 6.14 provide guidance for DCAS to 

transmit and publicize the outcome of a final decision established by the Secretary of 

HHS to add a class of employees to the Cohort, following the opportunity for Congress to 

review the decision. 

6.14.1 Prepare a report on the outcome of the HHS decision to add a class to the Cohort. 

The report must include a detailed definition of the class of employees, the 

outcome of the decision of HHS, and a summary of any action taken by Congress 

that affected the outcome of the HHS decision or its implementation. DCAS

should prepare and submit the report to the NIOSH Office of the Director a 

minimum of 7 days prior to the expiration of the 30-day congressional review 

period. This deadline applies whether or not Congress is actively considering the 

HHS decision at such time. If Congress concludes its consideration of the HHS 

decision prior to such time, DCAS should prepare the report as soon as possible. 

6.14.2 HHS must approve the report after confirmation of congressional action or after 

the expiration of the 30 day congressional review period, if Congress does not 

take action. This report must be appropriately redacted to protect the privacy of 

individuals, and must be reviewed by OGC prior to being sent to the petitioner(s). 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 41 of 48

 

6.14.3 Transmit the redacted and OGC-cleared report to the petitioner(s) and the 

unredacted version of the report to DOL within five work days of either 

expiration of the congressional review period or notification of final congressional 

action, whichever comes first. 

6.14.4 Post the approved, redacted and OGC-cleared report on the NIOSH/DCAS 

website. 

6.14.5 Prepare and publish a Federal Register Notice including the report. This notice 

must appropriately protect the privacy of individuals, and must be reviewed by 

OGC prior to being sent to the Federal Register. 

6.14.6 Provide the Federal Register Notice, and other assistance as necessary, to the 

NIOSH Public Affairs Officer to assist HHS in publicizing the final decision 

through appropriate media outlets. 

6.14.7 Work with DOL, DOE, and other organizations to publicize the report. 

6.14.8 Notify the CDC Washington Office (NIOSH assignee) of availability of the final 

report. 

6.15 Conduct an HHS administrative review of final decisions, as necessary. 

Note: Petitioner(s) may request an administrative review of a final decision of the NIOSH 

Director not to add a class of employees to the Special Exposure Cohort, or a decision 

that the 250-day health endangerment criterion applies to a class being added.

6.15.1 After the Director of NIOSH completes the actions required by step 6.11.2, HHS 

will grant the petitioner(s) 30 calendar days to contest a final decision not to add a 

class of employees to the Special Exposure Cohort, or to apply the 250-day health 

endangerment criterion to a class being added.

6.15.1.1 Such challenges must be submitted in writing. 

6.15.1.2 The challenge must include evidence that the final decision relies on a 

record of either substantial factual errors or substantial errors in the 

implementation of the procedures of 42 C.F.R., part 83. 

6.15.1.3 If the petitioner submits a proper, written appeal of the Secretary’s final 

decision not to add a class of employees to the Special Exposure Cohort, 

the Secretary of HHS (or designee) will appoint a panel of three HHS 

personnel, independent of NIOSH, who were not previously involved in 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 42 of 48

 

the review of the petition(s). The Secretary (or designee) will appoint 

one member of the panel as the chair, who will be responsible for 

convening the panel and transmitting the panel’s recommendation under 

step 6.15.4. 

6.15.1.4 The appointed panel of three HHS employees will conduct an 

administrative review based on a challenge submitted by the 

petitioner(s) and provide recommendations of the panel to the Secretary 

of HHS (or designee) concerning the merits of the challenge and the 

resolution of issues contested by the challenge. 

6.15.1.5 The panel shall consider whether HHS substantially complied with the 

procedures of 42 C.F.R., part 83, the factual accuracy of the information 

supporting the final decision, and the principal findings and 

recommendations of NIOSH and those of the Board issued under 42 

C.F.R. § 83.15. 

6.15.1.6 The review will consider, in addition to the views and information 

submitted by the petitioner(s) in the challenge, the final decision, the 

DCAS evaluation report(s) and the report containing the 

recommendations of the Board. 

6.15.1.7 The review may also consider information presented or submitted to the 

Board and the deliberations of the Board prior to the issuance of the 

recommendations of the Board under 42 C.F.R. § 83.15.

6.15.2 Upon completion of its deliberations, the panel will prepare and transmit to the 

Secretary of HHS (or designee) a report of the findings of the panel. 

6.15.2.1 The report will be based on the majority opinion of the panel. The chair 

will appoint one member of the majority to write the majority opinion of 

the panel. The chair can appoint himself/herself to write the majority 

opinion if he/she is in the majority. The majority report will indicate 

whether or not the panel supports the final decision made by the 

Secretary of HHS, and the rationale for the panel’s determination.

6.15.2.2 A minority addendum may be prepared by a dissenting member of the 

panel and be added to the panel’s final report, which is being submitted 

to the Secretary of HHS (or designee) for consideration. A minority 

addendum, if one is prepared, will indicate whether or not the minority 

supports the final decision made by the Secretary of HHS, and the 

rationale for that determination. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 43 of 48

 

6.15.3 If a petitioner(s) contests a final decision, the Secretary of HHS will decide 

whether or not to revise the final decision contested by the petitioner(s) after 

considering information and recommendations from the Director of NIOSH, the 

Board, and any HHS administrative review conducted under 42 C.F.R. § 83.18(b). 

6.15.3.1 DCAS will prepare a report of the decision to be transmitted by HHS to 

the petitioner(s).

6.15.4 If the Secretary of HHS decides under 42 C.F.R. § 83.18(c) to change a 

designation under 42 CFR § 83.17(a), or a determination under 42 C.F.R. § 

83.16(c), the Secretary will submit to Congress a report providing such change, 

including an iteration of the relevant criteria, as specified under 42 C.F.R. § 

83.13(c), and a summary of the information and findings on which the decision is 

based. 

6.15.4.1 NIOSH will publish a notice summarizing the decision in the Federal 

Register. 

6.15.5 The new designation will take effect 30 calendar days after the Secretary of HHS 

submits the report under § 83.18(d) to Congress, unless Congress takes an action 

that reverses or expedites the designation. 

6.15.5.1 Such new designations and related congressional actions will be further 

reported by the Secretary of HHS, per paragraphs (d) and (e) of 42 

C.F.R. § 83.17. 

6.16 Review the utility of newly obtained records and information for classes of employees 

added to the Cohort.

Note: Steps and procedures to provide guidance related to 42 C.F.R. § 83.19, which 

addresses how the Secretary of HHS can cancel or modify a final decision to add a class 

of employees to the Cohort, will be established at such time as they become necessary. 

At this time, the only activity required of DCAS and its technical contractors is 

monitoring the identification and collection of records and information by DCAS to 

determine whether it is new and relevant to classes added to the Cohort by HHS. 

6.16.1 DCAS and technical contractor staff should notify the SEC Health Physics Team 

Leader (or designee) when new records are identified that are relevant to a class 

of employees added to the Cohort. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 44 of 48

 

7.0 RECORDS

 The following records are generated as applicable: 

DCAS-FORM-A/DCAS-FORM-B (by petitioner) 

Communications with petitioner(s), including Reports of Phone Conversations 

Acknowledgement of Receipt letter

Notice of Deficiency 

Privacy Act Waiver 

Proposed Findings/Final Decision for Deficient Petitions 

Notification of Petition Selection for Evaluation 

Petition Evaluation Report 

Notification package for Board 

Report of Proposed Decision 

Report of Final Decision 

Report of Designation to Congress 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 45 of 48

 

8.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

8.1 Drivers 

 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(c)(3)(A) Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) 

 42 C.F.R., Part 83 and Amendments (see References 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4) 

8.2 Forms 

8.2.1 DCAS-FORM-A 

8.2.2 DCAS-FORM-B 

8.3 Procedures 

DCAS-PR-005, “Conduct of Assessments”

DCAS-PR-006, “CIC Processing Compensation Cases.”

9.0 ACRONYMS

AWE – Atomic Weapons Employer 

CIC – Claims Information & Communications Team 

DOE – Department of Energy 

DOL – Department of Labor 

EE – Energy Employee 

EEOICPA – Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 

(42 U.S.C. § 7384n(c)(3)(A) 

FACA - Federal Advisory Committee Act 

NIOSH – National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

DCAS – Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

OGC – Office of General Counsel

DSA - DCAS SEC Application Tracking System 

 SEC – Special Exposure Cohort
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 46 of 48

 

Attachment 1 – Evaluation Report Template 

Evaluation Summary

This section should fully define the class or classes covered by the evaluation, summarize 

findings of feasibility and, when appropriate, health endangerment applicable to the class or 

classes, and briefly summarize the criteria and findings supporting the findings. This section 

should not explicitly recommend the addition of a class to the Cohort or the denial of the 

petition, since it will be beneficial to have the Board’s evaluation before making such a 

recommendation on behalf of HHS. 

Class Definition Proposed by the Petitioner(s) and Petition Basis

This section should identify the class definition proposed by the petitioner and explain with 

reasonable detail the basis for the petition. 

Data Collection

This section should describe the data collection effort and its results. It should provide 

information on the following: 

Specifically, which information resources did we focus on (through DOE, DR records, 

research records, and/or from other resources, whether queried specifically in response 

to this petition or through TBD development or DRs)? 

What information germane to the evaluation of the class did we obtain from each 

resource we queried? (These summaries might be organized under each providing 

resource, according to the hierarchy of information usable for DRs.) 

An affirmative statement that we are unaware of any resources of information that we did 

not query. 

When appropriate, we should identify potential information resources that were unable to 

provide data on a timely basis. 

Summary of Radiological Operations Relevant to the Initial Class

This section should give the reader a holistic understanding of the work process and exposure 

potentials in the context of the process, such that the reader can judge whether we have 

evaluated feasibility (or health endangerment) systematically and completely. This section 

should give the reader an integrated operational understanding of the industrial process during 

the relevant timeframe and the radiological elements of this process, characterizing radiation 

sources, the route(s) of exposure to the class, and protective practices as known. Ideally, this 

section would include narrated graphical depictions of the work process, labeling the various 

activities and workflow, and each important source of potential radiation exposure 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 47 of 48

 

(e.g., shoveling ore, aerosolized dust from a process, proximity to source term, etc.). If including 

graphics proves too difficult, the process could be described using a narrative sequence without 

graphics. 

Evaluation of Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction

This section should begin with an introduction that summarizes the criteria for determining 

feasibility and the hierarchical approach NIOSH used to evaluate the adequacy of data for dose 

reconstruction. It should also explain that this approach was applied to each potential source of 

radiation exposure for the class (described in detail in the preceding section) to systematically 

address whether radiation doses could be estimated for all potential sources of radiation 

exposure to the class. 

A series of subsections should then follow. Each section should begin by identifying the potential 

source of exposure, and discussing the personnel monitoring information and whether it is 

adequate for DRs, based principally on monitoring data. If not, discuss the area monitoring data 

and whether it, in combination with the personnel monitoring data, is adequate. If not, discuss 

the process and source/source-term data and whether it, in combination with personnel and area 

monitoring data, is adequate. At each level of this analysis, we need to explain why the 

information is or is not adequate. 

The section needs to: (a) explain what amount and/or characteristics of data would be adequate 

to complete DRs for the class, using the given level of the hierarchy; and (b) describe how the 

data available fall short within these specific parameters. 

If data are adequate to support dose reconstruction, we must explain how such data could be 

used to reconstruct radiation doses. We should also clearly indicate that actual dose 

reconstructions for members of the class may employ methods that differ from the methods 

indicated here to establish feasibility. 

If data are not adequate to support dose reconstruction, we must specify criteria that distinguish 

in bright-line fashion between data that would have been adequate for dose reconstruction and 

the available data that are not adequate. 

Summary of Feasibility Findings

This section should summarize the preceding source-by-source findings of feasibility. A table 

might be an easy way to do this, the rows being the potential exposure sources and the columns 

being the determination. 
Effective Date: 04/15/2011 Revision No. 1 Procedure No.

DCAS-PR-004

Page 48 of 48

 

Evaluation of Health Endangerment

When we find that a DR is not feasible for one or more exposure sources, we need to have a 

section that addresses health endangerment for those sources. When we determine nonfeasibility is related to a discrete incident, we need to summarize the data, calculations, and 

findings from the incident and from other comparable incidents, as applicable, that demonstrate 

the high exposure potential implicated. When NIOSH has not identified exposure incidents that 

would constitute a discrete incident as defined under 42 CFR § 83.13(c)(3)(i), we need to specify 

this finding. 

Definition of Class

We need a section following the analyses of feasibility and health endangerment that defines the 

class or classes established on the basis of the analyses. The definition needs to specify the time 

period, work locations and other employment parameters (e.g., employment duration to address 

health endangerment when DR is not feasible), using practical terms that could be applied by 

NIOSH to identify members of a class that has already been considered or applied by DOL to 

identify members of a class that could be added to the Cohort. This section also needs to identify 

and provide the rationale for any changes made by NIOSH to the petitioner-proposed class 

definition as a result of the evaluation.